Home

Export thread

Gun Background checks

Apr 8, 2013#1

Ric

Are you For Gun Background Checks or Against. Would like to see the percentages, Please Vote and leave your reasons if you like.

Apr 8, 2013#2

Carscw

Ric said:
Are you For Gun Background Checks or Against. Would like to see the percentages, Please Vote and leave your reasons if you like.

I am for background checks.

I do not feel you have the right to own a gun if you commit felonies. Or even drunk driving or any drug or violent crimes.

(( racing is the only sport that you need two balls ))

Apr 8, 2013#3

M

mowerman05

background checks are a great thing but they do nothing to keep a illegal gun out of a criminals hands.

Apr 8, 2013#4

wjjones

Carscw said:
I am for background checks.

I do not feel you have the right to own a gun if you commit felonies. Or even drunk driving or any drug or violent crimes.

(( racing is the only sport that you need two balls ))

Not sure about nation wide but here in Tn if you have had a felony conviction, or order of protection against you can not have any type of firearm. I am for background checks, and I think as you mentioned they should tighten them up some to include anyone who has committed a violent crime, dui, and drug charges. But there is always the guns that fall through the cracks that are un-registered, and ilegal that cant be accounted for. Most gun shows here where they are sold person to person they arent even required to do a background check, or register the new owner.

Apr 8, 2013#5

midnite rider

No, background checks are for the law abiding. Less government is better government in my opinion.

Apr 8, 2013#6

midnite rider

Read this view. The Totalitarianism of Universal Background Checks

Apr 8, 2013#7

jekjr

All gun laws do is hinder honest people. The second amendment is o about getting to hunt it is about being able to protect ones self from bodily harm and from a government at wants to oppress you.

I see so many people that want to jump on the band wagon against certain groups of people not being allows to own a firearm. That is wrong as well. I know several people that committed felonies at some point in their lives and serve their time. Once they have why should they still be not able to protect themselves?

Apr 8, 2013#8

Ric

I'll tell you all the reason for this pole. I've been watching some of the News programs at night and they are making claims that 90% of the people in this country agree on gun background checks, they also claim the 88% of NRA members agree that we should have background checks. Now I don't about anyone else but I find it hard to believe that you can get 90% of the people in this country to agree on anything. I think the news media is making these poles up and the figures they are giving are fake. So I was interested in the percentages here on the forum.

Apr 8, 2013#9

Carscw

jekjr said:
All gun laws do is hinder honest people. The second amendment is o about getting to hunt it is about being able to protect ones self from bodily harm and from a government at wants to oppress you.

I see so many people that want to jump on the band wagon against certain groups of people not being allows to own a firearm. That is wrong as well. I know several people that committed felonies at some point in their lives and serve their time. Once they have why should they still be not able to protect themselves?

If you are not responsible enough to not drive drunk or not to hold up a store or not hit your wife or not smoke weed or do drugs them your not responsible enough to handle a gun.

I agree we should be able to protect ourselves but some people are just to dumb to have a gun

I do not have a gun because I know I would shoot someone rather than knock the hell out of them

(( racing is the only sport that you need two balls ))

Apr 8, 2013#10

combatcarl

I think if it's restricted to a background check, fine. No registration. Criminal types don't bother with BC or reg. If you want one, you'll get your hands on one, and won't care if you get caught with it. Need to actually viciously enforce existing laws. The nut at sandy hook broke about 43 laws, at state and federal levels. Did it deter him? No. No law will stop anything. Only prescribes an act that is prohibited, and a punishment for that act. Sad, horrible events, and we should look at deeper causative effects than firearms/access to firearms. I won't say that easy access isn't a problem in some cases. But the thought of jail time or worse only deters people who wouldn't have committed a crime. It's much much much deeper than guns or gun laws.

Apr 9, 2013#11

MowerMike

Carscw said:
If you are not responsible enough to not drive drunk or not to hold up a store or not hit your wife or not smoke weed or do drugs them your not responsible enough to handle a gun.

Weed smoking is already legal in 17 states + DC and likely to increase to many more in the next 5 years. Are the folks in those states too dumb to own guns ? What do arbitrary federal laws that are stupid and have nothing to do with the commission of violent crimes have to do with the responsible exercise of a constitutionally granted right ?

I've got another fact for you. Twice as many gun deaths are due to suicide than homicide. Is suicide a responsible use of a firearm ?

Should background checks assess the metal stability of people and deny access to those prone to depression who might off themselves ?

Frankly, I'm a lot more worried by dumbass regular citizens with carry permits who get in shootouts over parking space disputes and neighbor's dogs crapping in their yards. Not to mention overzealous shopping mall guards who get in fights with shoplifters and end up shooting them when they get their fat assess whooped.

Apr 9, 2013#12

ILENGINE

Frankly said:
Sounds like more Wild West BS. Hasn't happened, and studies show concealed carriers are more law abiding than the average population. And shoplifters are not law abiding are they.

Apr 9, 2013#13

Ric

ILENGINE said:
Sounds like more Wild West BS. Hasn't happened, and studies show concealed carriers are more law abiding than the average population. And shoplifters are not law abiding are they.

I think you'll find if you do a little research you'll find your right about concealed carriers being more law abiding than the average population. I think if you do a little research you would also find that the news media is also fabricating their facts about guns killing more people in this country than any other weapon. Their was a newspaper article a while back from the editor of one one the local papers about the media fabrications and his research showed and he listed the statistics and their locations and it proved that Knives were responsible for more deaths in this country than guns.

The Background Checks, weapons ban, clip or magazine restrictions is a load of BS. None will do a thing to prevent things like what happened in Conn. :thumbdown: The only thing our government has accomplished with all their talk is to drive up prices and increase gun sales like 800% and the problem is there to stupid to know the difference.

Apr 9, 2013#14

MowerMike

ILENGINE said:
Sounds like more Wild West BS. Hasn't happened, and studies show concealed carriers are more law abiding than the average population. And shoplifters are not law abiding are they.

Around here there are road rage shootings all the time. Recently an armed mall cop got into a road rage confrontation with another motorist who was unarmed, and shot him dead. Remember Zimmerman ? Would he have stalked and shot Martin if he were unarmed ? Nope, he would have waited for the cops to arrive and nobody would have died. People get really big balls when they've got a gun on them. If you want to keep a gun or guns on your property for personal protection or just to play with them that's cool with me. But I'd rather that the general population not carry them off property and that only regular cops have them. If you want to shoot guns, then go to a shooting range. In Germany, there are gun registration laws, but people are still able to own and carry guns. The United States has 3.2 annual gun homicides per 100,000 people, whereas in Germany it is only 0.06, so you are over 50 times more likely to be murdered in the USA by gun than in Germany.

Apr 9, 2013#15

midnite rider

MowerMike said:
In Germany, there are gun registration laws, but people are still able to own and carry guns. The United States has 3.2 annual gun homicides per 100,000 people, whereas in Germany it is only 0.06, so you are over 50 times more likely to be murdered in the USA by gun than in Germany.

Yes, as I study history, Germany required registration and also took certain peoples guns away from them before WWII. Made for easier control of the people by the Nazis.

Apr 9, 2013#16

MowerMike

midnite rider said:
Yes, as I study history, Germany required registration and also took certain peoples guns away from them before WWII. Made for easier control of the people by the Nazis.

So are you trying to compare pre WWII Germany to today's USA ? I know that's the mantra of the gun lobby people and it's totally paranoid nuts.

Apr 9, 2013#17

okiepc

What about todays latest headline? At least 14 hurt in Lone Star College stabbings, should we now regulate knives and have background checks to own a knife? If only we can save one person then its worth it I say, Ya, right:thumbdown:

Apr 9, 2013#18

midnite rider

MowerMike said:
So are you trying to compare pre WWII Germany to today's USA ? I know that's the mantra of the gun lobby people and it's totally paranoid nuts.

The saying is those who don't follow history are prone to repeat it or something to that effect. Oh and by the way the gun lobby may be but I am not paranoid as maybe you can guess why.

Apr 9, 2013#19

MowerMike

okiepc said:
What about todays latest headline? At least 14 hurt in Lone Star College stabbings, should we now regulate knives and have background checks to own a knife? If only we can save one person then its worth it I say, Ya, right:thumbdown:

Well, instead of 14 fatalities we have 14 survivable injuries. If the Sandy Hook nutjob had used knives instead of guns, do you think the outcome would be the same ? So, no your comparison of guns, which are very efficient weapons for killing people in large numbers to knives that are not is absurd. Guns allow you to kill someone at a safe distance, whereas knives you have to be close enough that a good self-defence trained victim can disarm you. This is one of these silly irrelevant arguments that anti gun control advocates pull out of their rear ends when they can't logically defend their extreme positions.

Apr 9, 2013#20

ILENGINE

MowerMike said:
Around here there are road rage shootings all the time. Recently an armed mall cop got into a road rage confrontation with another motorist who was unarmed, and shot him dead. Remember Zimmerman ? Would he have stalked and shot Martin if he were unarmed ? Nope, he would have waited for the cops to arrive and nobody would have died. People get really big balls when they've got a gun on them. If you want to keep a gun or guns on your property for personal protection or just to play with them that's cool with me. But I'd rather that the general population not carry them off property and that only regular cops have them. If you want to shoot guns, then go to a shooting range. In Germany, there are gun registration laws, but people are still able to own and carry guns. The United States has 3.2 annual gun homicides per 100,000 people, whereas in Germany it is only 0.06, so you are over 50 times more likely to be murdered in the USA by gun than in Germany.

Who started confrontation between the rent a cop and the other motorist. Was the other motorist trying to run down the cop with his vehicle, was the cop in fear for his life. If not then the cop committed murder, which is not law abiding.

How many of those 3.2 per 100,000 are committed by concealed carry permit holders. How many are committed by felons, which can't legally own a gun anyway.

Apr 9, 2013#21

MowerMike

ILENGINE said:
Who started confrontation between the rent a cop and the other motorist. Was the other motorist trying to run down the cop with his vehicle, was the cop in fear for his life. If not then the cop committed murder, which is not law abiding.

How many of those 3.2 per 100,000 are committed by concealed carry permit holders. How many are committed by felons, which can't legally own a gun anyway.

The rent a cop has his story, but since the other party is dead and there are no witnesses it's hard to say what really happened. I think the case has not yet been sent to a grand jury.

A lot of homicides are committed by family or acquaintances. Whether these people have carry permits or not is irrelevant. If I'm on the road and you lose your temper and shoot me, it really doesn't matter to me whether you have the gun legally or not. George Zimmerman had a legal carry permit and it ended up with him killing another unarmed man because he wanted to play cop and got himself into a situation that he couldn't handle w/o a gun.

Apr 10, 2013#22

txzrider

A couple of points... Zimmerman was told to stand down by the police and not to pursue the kid. Right there is where his 1st mistake was, had he come across the kid, and was attacked we would be having a different discussion. As it is now a jury will decide, but in my mind had he followed the instructions he was given, the kid might be alive.

Also to the poster above that used knives as an example of how they are not as efficient at killing and therefore more might have lived at Sandy Hook. It has already been implied that lansing was somehow looking to kill as many as possible, dont you think that if guns had not been avail, then maybe he would have used something else? a sword, a bomb of something? Laws do not slow down criminals who want to have guns, they find a way. Heck he could have driven his car into the school. Would you then ban cars? Would better mental health sources solve it? Lansing was obviously sick, did his Mom do all she could to stop him, who knows. After 9/11 my company invested in special revolving doors on all entrances into the building. You can exit easily, but you have to have a code and id card to get in. Would that have protected the school? I agree something needs to be done, but taking away the guns of law abiding citizens is not it.

Apr 10, 2013#23

MowerMike

txzrider said:
A couple of points... Zimmerman was told to stand down by the police and not to pursue the kid. Right there is where his 1st mistake was, had he come across the kid, and was attacked we would be having a different discussion. As it is now a jury will decide, but in my mind had he followed the instructions he was given, the kid might be alive.

Also to the poster above that used knives as an example of how they are not as efficient at killing and therefore more might have lived at Sandy Hook. It has already been implied that lansing was somehow looking to kill as many as possible, don't you think that if guns had not been avail, then maybe he would have used something else? a sword, a bomb of something? Laws do not slow down criminals who want to have guns, they find a way. Heck he could have driven his car into the school. Would you then ban cars? Would better mental health sources solve it? Lansing was obviously sick, did his Mom do all she could to stop him, who knows. After 9/11 my company invested in special revolving doors on all entrances into the building. You can exit easily, but you have to have a code and id card to get in. Would that have protected the school? I agree something needs to be done, but taking away the guns of law abiding citizens is not it.

The point is that Zimmerman had and carried a gun legally, was not a convicted felon, was not mentally deranged etc. He was presumably rational, competent and by all accounts a responsible gun owner who was serving his community as a citizen's watch person. Yet he somehow got a sense of boldness and power from that weapon, which led him to ignore the police instructions, which ended up with him unnecessarily killing another young human being who might otherwise still be alive. There is a citizen's watch where I live too, but we are unarmed and simply observe and report. The city gives us a police car to drive with a placard on the side, and we can used the police radio to alert them of any suspicious activity. The crime rate in my neighborhood is extremely low, and violent crime is virtually nonexistent.

I've stated very clearly that I'm not against legal private gun ownership, provided the guns are kept on that person's private property. Heck, a lady friend of mine who lives alone has a gun for her protection, but it never leaves the premises and is locked in a small safe when she's gone.

As to the argument that the Sandy Hook nutjob could have used other means, I reject that as ridiculous if you look at the facts. He was a wimpy little guy who would have been stopped short very quickly had he used knives or swords, and probably would not be any fatalities. Certainly he would never have reached any of the children, before one of the adults would have stopped him. A bomb ? Really ? Where was he going to get a bomb ? Your local friendly bomb store ? A car ? Yeah, right. An M1 Abrams tank, maybe. But a car ? C'mon. And guns are designed with the specific purpose to kill. Cars are designed for transportation and are not meant nor are they particularly efficient weapons. So this whole silly argument that anything can be used as a weapon, like should we ban rocks because rocks can be used as weapons is extreme sophism at best.

Apr 12, 2013#24

djdicetn

MowerMike said:
The point is that Zimmerman had and carried a gun legally, was not a convicted felon, was not mentally deranged etc. He was presumably rational, competent and by all accounts a responsible gun owner who was serving his community as a citizen's watch person. Yet he somehow got a sense of boldness and power from that weapon, which led him to ignore the police instructions, which ended up with him unnecessarily killing another young human being who might otherwise still be alive. There is a citizen's watch where I live too, but we are unarmed and simply observe and report. The city gives us a police car to drive with a placard on the side, and we can used the police radio to alert them of any suspicious activity. The crime rate in my neighborhood is extremely low, and violent crime is virtually nonexistent.

I've stated very clearly that I'm not against legal private gun ownership, provided the guns are kept on that person's private property. Heck, a lady friend of mine who lives alone has a gun for her protection, but it never leaves the premises and is locked in a small safe when she's gone.

As to the argument that the Sandy Hook nutjob could have used other means, I reject that as ridiculous if you look at the facts. He was a wimpy little guy who would have been stopped short very quickly had he used knives or swords, and probably would not be any fatalities. Certainly he would never have reached any of the children, before one of the adults would have stopped him. A bomb ? Really ? Where was he going to get a bomb ? Your local friendly bomb store ? A car ? Yeah, right. An M1 Abrams tank, maybe. But a car ? C'mon. And guns are designed with the specific purpose to kill. Cars are designed for transportation and are not meant nor are they particularly efficient weapons. So this whole silly argument that anything can be used as a weapon, like should we ban rocks because rocks can be used as weapons is extreme sophism at best.

I voted yes, simply because I believe a background check will "slow down" the ability of a criminally-inclined(with that type of background) person with the intent of using said weapon to purport a future crime. I agree with most that this will not prevent that person from obtaining one illegally, but they just can't walk into a Bass Pro Shop, buy a gun, go out in the parking lot and load it and go back in and hold up the Bass Pro Shop cashiers. That's just making it way too easy!!! And indeed, background checks are not always a fair thing since some people who have absolutely no crimiinal intent, but have something in their background that is not allowed, cannot own a gun(I can't seem to equate DUI with what a person, even if intoxicated, is capable of doing with a gun). All of the recent/past examples of random shootings is NOT, in my opinion, going to be stopped by the measures currently being considered by the government for tighter gun restrictions. We live in a violent world(ever since Cain killed Able) and nothing....I repeat nothing is going to change that. My inclinations are to agree with the statement above by user MowerMike that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to legally own and keep a gun on their private property(home, RV, boat, automobile) but I do not agree that they should be able to carry that gun in public on their person. My wife "wanted" a handgun for her birthday for our protection, took the gun safety course, passed the background check, was issued a carry permit and purchased a handgun. That gun only goes in the "private properies" I mentioned previously for our protection. She(and I) are both "intimidated AND nervous", when we are sitting in a restaurant and a person(who apparently is not a police officer) comes in with a handgun displayed on their hip. That may have been the way that things were in the days of Wyatt Earp, but it is not the right thing anymore for the society that we live in. If a robber comes into that restaurant and the guy eating there that is carrying decides to intervene...innocent people are likely to be shot in the crossfire. Armed "security guards" in all of the schools....I don't know, with the recent incidents maybe but I'm glad it wasn't like that when I went to school.

Apr 12, 2013#25

Ric

djdicetn said:
I voted yes, simply because I believe a background check will "slow down" the ability of a criminally-inclined(with that type of background) person with the intent of using said weapon to purport a future crime. I agree with most that this will not prevent that person from obtaining one illegally, but they just can't walk into a Bass Pro Shop, buy a gun, go out in the parking lot and load it and go back in and hold up the Bass Pro Shop cashiers. That's just making it way too easy!!! And indeed, background checks are not always a fair thing since some people who have absolutely no crimiinal intent, but have something in their background that is not allowed, cannot own a gun(I can't seem to equate DUI with what a person, even if intoxicated, is capable of doing with a gun). All of the recent/past examples of random shootings is NOT, in my opinion, going to be stopped by the measures currently being considered by the government for tighter gun restrictions. We live in a violent world(ever since Cain killed Able) and nothing....I repeat nothing is going to change that. My inclinations are to agree with the statement above by user MowerMike that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to legally own and keep a gun on their private property(home, RV, boat, automobile) but I do not agree that they should be able to carry that gun in public on their person. My wife "wanted" a handgun for her birthday for our protection, took the gun safety course, passed the background check, was issued a carry permit and purchased a handgun. That gun only goes in the "private properies" I mentioned previously for our protection. She(and I) are both "intimidated AND nervous", when we are sitting in a restaurant and a person(who apparently is not a police officer) comes in with a handgun displayed on their hip. That may have been the way that things were in the days of Wyatt Earp, but it is not the right thing anymore for the society that we live in. If a robber comes into that restaurant and the guy eating there that is carrying decides to intervene...innocent people are likely to be shot in the crossfire. Armed "security guards" in all of the schools....I don't know, with the recent incidents maybe but I'm glad it wasn't like that when I went to school.

The reason I vote no is because I think a background check is ridiculous. It will not stop a criminal period, it's not going to slow down the ability of a criminally-inclined person with the intent of using said weapon. It will not stop things like what happened in Conn. You talk about Armed "security guards" in all of the schools, there has been Armed officers on school grounds since 1976 and they actually live on the grounds.

Apr 12, 2013#26

djdicetn

Ric said:
The reason I vote no is because I think a background check is ridiculous. It will not stop a criminal period, it's not going to slow down the ability of a criminally-inclined person with the intent of using said weapon. It will not stop things like what happened in Conn. You talk about Armed "security guards" in all of the schools, there has been Armed officers on school grounds since 1976 and they actually live on the grounds.

Well I guess, using my Bass Pro Shop scenario, the guy can either rob them today....or get the gun illegally and rob it next week. But regardless, if he's gonna rob it, he's gonna rob it. What do you think about packing in public??? I can't see this country reverse-evolving to the Wild West. ANd what really gets me is the "different" laws from state to state. I think if there are going to be ANY gun reglations, they should be at the national level. For instance, my wife has a carry permit issued in Tennessee. When we traveled to Maine there were many states we camped in our RV in where we were "breaking their state laws" by having our handgun. Infact, there was a recent incident whaere a lady was visiting the 9-1-1 site in New York, realized she had her handgun in her purse with her(and had a carry permit in the state she lived in), but she sought out the authorities thinking she could just leave her gun with them and pick it back up.....and they threw her in jail!!!!Just how much sense does that make???????

Apr 13, 2013#27

midnite rider

Unfortunately we live in a violent world. This will not change so at sometime you have to decide whether you want to be able to protect your family or be unable to resist someone inflicting harm to others and you. Usually by the time the police arrive it is to late. I choose to be able to meet deadly force with deadly force wherever I am.
The following true story happened a few years ago very close to my home here in Kennesaw. My daughter was passed by the victims car that day and witnessed the carjacker and victim fighting in the car as they sped past her car to the subsequent wreck and shooting of the carjacker. A private citizen, Shawn Roberts, thank God, was packing that day outside of his home and most certainly saved many more lives. He was found to have acted within the laws of my state. We now have the Kimberly Boyd bridge across Lake Acworth, to commemorate the victim. It was the last bridge she crossed while being carjacked on that fateful day. The carjacker had a stolen gun and the laws against convicted felons obtaining them obviously did no good. There are many other cases as such I could name that most people never hear about. I have a feeling of security when I see responsible citizens wearing for all the world to see and a lot more tote that you do not see. Please read the following and make your own decision:

Fatal carjacking was a nightmare in broad daylight
By MICHAEL PEARSON, PAUL KAPLAN, DON PLUMMER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 09/18/05
Through her office window, Becky Porter watched as the white Toyota SUV swerved across Cobb Parkway and crashed into a concrete truck.
Porter remembers a blur of action as she ran outside.
The driver jumped out. Porter heard three shots, then witnessed a scene that brings tears to her eyes.
"The driver ... had a gun in his hand, and the guy who was chasing him shot him," Porter said. "Then he hit his knees and started crying, because he turned around and saw the lady in the car was dead. I heard him say, 'Oh God.' "
The crime was as random as one could imagine.
A stranger carjacks a woman in broad daylight. There's a crash. The woman dies. Her abductor is shot and killed not by police but by an armed passer-by who gave chase in his truck.
That man, Shawn T. Roberts, has emerged as a hero for trying to help 30-year-old Kimberly Boyd and for saving other lives that police say might have been taken had the carjacker escaped.
"Scores of people were coming up to him and thanking him for what he did," said Scott Cannon, a friend of the Boyds who attended Kimberly's funeral Friday.
Roberts was among those who came to pay respects.
"He wanted everyone to know she didn't go down without a fight," said Brandon Henderson, a friend of the Boyds' who spoke to Roberts during the service.
"He said, 'Just so you all know, Kim was whipping his *** on the side of the road before he grabbed her and threw her in the car.'"
Although police say Roberts acted courageously, such acts have not always met with official approval. Cobb County District Attorney Pat Head and the grand jury will have the final word on Roberts' legal fate.
But this much is certain: In a matter of moments, in an act of violence and happenstance, three disparate lives became intertwined on that highway last Monday morning.
Unlikely carjack site
Kimberly Boyd owned a truck rental company in Acworth, a Cobb County community where the Appalachian Mountains yield to the granite Piedmont.
Boyd's business is in a strip mall, with a Big Lots, a Waffle House and several other businesses one of the last places you might notice someone lurking.
But Brian O'Neil Clark, a 25-year-old felon who had been released from prison three months earlier, was there.
That morning, Boyd left her home in Paulding County before 8 a.m. She dropped her 5-year-old son, Connor, at school and drove to her office. Police believe she was abducted by Clark in the parking lot.
At 9:25 that morning, Boyd used her ATM card to withdraw money outside a Wachovia bank about 5 miles away.
"We speculate that she went to that area hoping someone would see her and become suspicious," said Kevin Flynn, a homicide lieutenant with the Cobb County Police Department. "This indicates she was cool-headed and doing everything she could to survive because there were other banks closer to where she was abducted."
Roberts first saw Boyd and Clark about 1 1/2 miles south of the bank. Clark hit Boyd with his fist and a gun as the two struggled along Cobb Parkway, just past a bridge over Allatoona Reservoir.
At some point, Clark shot Boyd.
He then shoved her into the back seat of the SUV and sped away. As Boyd's SUV careened down Cobb Parkway, Roberts gave chase.
Then came the crash.
At Lake Acworth Drive, about a half-mile from where Roberts saw Boyd and Clark fighting, a cement truck moving northbound on Cobb Parkway crashed into the SUV as Clark tried to make a sharp left turn off the highway.
The accident's impact killed Boyd.
Clark emerged from the crumpled SUV and started running toward a gas station.
As Roberts approached, Clark raised his gun.
That's when Porter heard the shots from outside her office at Atlanta Tile Specialists.
Clark fell in a heap, dead.
Boyd, still inside her SUV, was already gone.
At the Cobb County 911 center, the call boards lit up "like a Christmas tree," Flynn said.
The first caller told an operator there had been a bad accident and someone had been shot.
Family came first
Kimberly Boyd put her children and her husband above everything else, including her business.
She used to take Connor and her 2-year-old daughter, Chloe, to work with her so she could spend time with them throughout the day.
"There were toys all over the floor of her store," said Janeice Confer, who manages a truck rental franchise nearby. "She was a very devoted mother."
She spent two years at the University of Georgia in the mid-1990s. Mike Boyd, eight years her senior, went to college in Tennessee.
"The only thing I ever heard those two argue about was Georgia-Tennessee," Henderson, a friend of the Boyds', said with a chuckle. "Kim would call me for stats ?Quick, how many points did Georgia score off Tennessee last year?' "
The couple recently got custody of Mike's 13-year-old son, Nathan, from a previous marriage, and Kimberly told her friends she didn't think she could raise all three children while running a business.
So she was looking for someone to buy her out.
But Monday, she had a customer coming in at 8:30 a.m. She had to make sure the truck was ready to be picked up.
Chloe had a cold, so Mike stayed home.
Kids first, work second.
"It was a family that had everything together," said Scott Cannon, who coached Nathan's baseball team in Woodstock.
The day after his mother was abducted and killed, Connor went to his room and drew a picture. He asked his dad if his mother would ever see it.
"Yes," Michael Boyd told his son.
"She'll love the picture, and she'll be with you forever."
The drawing was in Kimberly's casket Friday when she was buried.
It's a picture of a teddy bear, with the words "I LOVE YOU MOMMY."
Hailed as a hero
Shawn T. Roberts lives in the sprawling Bentwater subdivision in Paulding County. It's only about a mile from the Boyds' home, but it doesn't appear as if the two had ever met.
Roberts, 31, owns a home theater and burglar alarm company and carried a licensed pistol.
Before he stopped speaking publicly about the incident, he said he had no choice, that had he not acted, more people could have been harmed.
And that's how his actions are being seen, in metro Atlanta and across the country.
Web sites and blogs are filled with postings crediting Roberts for his fast thinking and for trying to save lives.
"This guy probably saved another 25+ victims ..." a poster with the screen name "Taurus" said on a message board at www.packing.org, a Web site for advocates of concealed-carry laws. "Shawn Roberts is a hero in my book."
Police and community leaders seem to agree.
"You drive by a man beating a woman on the side of the road, you have to do something," said Deanne Bonner, president of the Cobb County chapter of the NAACP.
Said Flynn, the homicide lieutenant: "I want to stress that ... we have found no violations of Georgia law. That being said, the district attorney will make the final decision."
Although Roberts knew nothing about Clark's background at the time of the shooting, police seem to think there's a good chance others might have been hurt had Roberts done nothing.
In April 2002, Clark was arrested in Illinois and brought back to Georgia to face child molestation, statutory rape and burglary charges in Cobb County, where he received an 18-month sentence, jail records show.
In May 2004, Clark was charged in Cherokee County for first-degree forgery. He served a year in state prison and was released June 13.
Police also suspect Clark is responsible for a rape, carjacking and robbery in Acworth on Sept. 6.
In that case, police believe Clark beat and raped a woman, then forced her to drive to a nearby bank so he could withdraw money from the bank's ATM.
During that attack, Clark stole a gun from the woman's home, police said.
That gun was finally found Monday near Clark's body after he was shot.

Apr 13, 2013#28

BKBrown

djdicetn said:
Well I guess, using my Bass Pro Shop scenario, the guy can either rob them today....or get the gun illegally and rob it next week. But regardless, if he's gonna rob it, he's gonna rob it. What do you think about packing in public??? I can't see this country reverse-evolving to the Wild West. ANd what really gets me is the "different" laws from state to state. I think if there are going to be ANY gun reglations, they should be at the national level. For instance, my wife has a carry permit issued in Tennessee. When we traveled to Maine there were many states we camped in our RV in where we were "breaking their state laws" by having our handgun. Infact, there was a recent incident whaere a lady was visiting the 9-1-1 site in New York, realized she had her handgun in her purse with her(and had a carry permit in the state she lived in), but she sought out the authorities thinking she could just leave her gun with them and pick it back up.....and they threw her in jail!!!!Just how much sense does that make???????

It makes NO sense for a law abiding citizen who has a legal carry permit from their state to be jailed in any other state just for having the firearm.
At vary least, it should be legal to transport the firearm in every state if the permit is valid in the home state.

Just a note and not a snide comment, but it is 9-11 (date) not 9-1-1 (emergency number).

Apr 15, 2013#29

djdicetn

BKBrown said:
It makes NO sense for a law abiding citizen who has a legal carry permit from their state to be jailed in any other state just for having the firearm.
At vary least, it should be legal to transport the firearm in every state if the permit is valid in the home state.

Just a note and not a snide comment, but it is 9-11 (date) not 9-1-1 (emergency number).

BKBrown,

Yeah...as explained to me by my father-in-law, when we traveled to Maine from TN with our handgun in our "closed/unoccupied" travel trailer we broke the law in almost half the states we passed through(especially New York, which does not recognize any other state's carry permit). Much less the states we stayed in an RV park in where we were in the travel trailer with a loaded handgun and only had a TN carry permit. That stinks!!!!!

P.S.
My apologies for the 9-11 typo...didn't realize it til you pointed it out.

Apr 15, 2013#30

txzrider

MowerMike said:
The point is that Zimmerman had and carried a gun legally, was not a convicted felon, was not mentally deranged etc. He was presumably rational, competent and by all accounts a responsible gun owner who was serving his community as a citizen's watch person. Yet he somehow got a sense of boldness and power from that weapon, which led him to ignore the police instructions, which ended up with him unnecessarily killing another young human being who might otherwise still be alive. There is a citizen's watch where I live too, but we are unarmed and simply observe and report. The city gives us a police car to drive with a placard on the side, and we can used the police radio to alert them of any suspicious activity. The crime rate in my neighborhood is extremely low, and violent crime is virtually nonexistent.

I've stated very clearly that I'm not against legal private gun ownership, provided the guns are kept on that person's private property. Heck, a lady friend of mine who lives alone has a gun for her protection, but it never leaves the premises and is locked in a small safe when she's gone.

As to the argument that the Sandy Hook nutjob could have used other means, I reject that as ridiculous if you look at the facts. He was a wimpy little guy who would have been stopped short very quickly had he used knives or swords, and probably would not be any fatalities. Certainly he would never have reached any of the children, before one of the adults would have stopped him. A bomb ? Really ? Where was he going to get a bomb ? Your local friendly bomb store ? A car ? Yeah, right. An M1 Abrams tank, maybe. But a car ? C'mon. And guns are designed with the specific purpose to kill. Cars are designed for transportation and are not meant nor are they particularly efficient weapons. So this whole silly argument that anything can be used as a weapon, like should we ban rocks because rocks can be used as weapons is extreme sophism at best.

As to you question regarding my comment that if they really want to kill a lot of people they could use a bomb, exhibit a Boston is in the news for why... oh yes bombs! This is tragic. Should we outlaw bombs? Oh wait we have!! NBC is reporting(read today in usa today) that an assault rifle was not used in Sandy Hook.

Apr 15, 2013#31

MowerMike

txzrider said:
As to you question regarding my comment that if they really want to kill a lot of people they could use a bomb, exhibit a Boston is in the news for why... oh yes bombs! This is tragic. Should we outlaw bombs? Oh wait we have!! NBC is reporting(read today in usa today) that an assault rifle was not used in Sandy Hook.

More sophistic logic on your part. The Sandy Hook killer could not easily have gotten or made a bomb, but he had a bunch of guns because his mom foolishly gave them to him. Today's incident in Boston is organized terrorism, and the only thing we don't know yet is whether it is domestic or international. It doesn't impact whether or not there should be background checks or if anyone who wants to carry in public is allowed to do so.

Apr 15, 2013#32

txzrider

Call it what you want, in colorado the "nutjob" used a bushmaster (ar 15) and had booby trapped his apartment with explosive devices. My point is valid, if they want to, they will find a way. Since criminals will never obey gun laws how will more gun laws help? Dont get me wrong, I agree something needs to be done. The people who go through the exaggerated background checks to get their concealed carry license are not the problem.

Apr 16, 2013#33

BKBrown

djdicetn said:
BKBrown,

Yeah...as explained to me by my father-in-law, when we traveled to Maine from TN with our handgun in our "closed/unoccupied" travel trailer we broke the law in almost half the states we passed through(especially New York, which does not recognize any other state's carry permit). Much less the states we stayed in an RV park in where we were in the travel trailer with a loaded handgun and only had a TN carry permit. That stinks!!!!!

P.S.
My apologies for the 9-11 typo...didn't realize it til you pointed it out.

No need for apologies. Many people use 911 or 9-1-1 instead of 9-11.

I notice that I used "vary" instead of "very" - The english language is frustrating at times !
The Founders intended (in the 2nd amendment) that the God given right to protect yourself and family would be guaranteed by The Constitution.
IMHO any law (state or federal) that restricts that right with restrictive gun laws is unconstitutional.
Obviously, convicted felons and criminals should not have those rights as they forfited the right by breaking the laws and becoming criminals.
Anyone who has a state carry permit should have free access to all states with firearms until it is proven that they are a criminal.

Apr 16, 2013#34

okiepc

BKBrown said:
No need for apologies. Many people use 911 or 9-1-1 instead of 9-11.

I notice that I used "vary" instead of "very" - The english language is frustrating at times !
The Founders intended (in the 2nd amendment) that the God given right to protect yourself and family would be guaranteed by The Constitution.
IMHO any law (state or federal) that restricts that right with restrictive gun laws is unconstitutional.
Obviously, convicted felons and criminals should not have those rights as they forfited the right by breaking the laws and becoming criminals.
Anyone who has a state carry permit should have free access to all states with firearms until it is proven that they are a criminal.

What he said :thumbsup: enforce the laws we have now on the books

Apr 17, 2013#35

okiepc

:confused3: I guess we have another item we need to regulate & this will upset a lot of moms around the country, the dreaded

Pressure Cooker!!!!! These were used in the Boston Marathon Bombing the other day according to the FBI Inside a bomb investigation: the hunt for forensic clues - Open Channel. Anyone using a pressure cooker must complete a course & have background checks and obtain a permit to continue using this item. Pffft :thumbdown:

Apr 17, 2013#36

BKBrown

The idiot liberals and progressives just don't get that laws do not stop criminals !
Besides, most of them have their own private or tax paid security (with guns) that normal tax payers can not afford.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is too hard for them to get ????
The founders and framers of The Constitution intended every able bodied man (now woman too) to be on call (part of the militia)
and not only for protection from evil, but also protection from abusive government.

Evil will not be stopped by laws.

Apr 17, 2013#37

midnite rider

Well the bill for gun background checks was defeated today in the Senate. A victory for all law abiding citizens I feel.
A vote on behalf of protecting our Bill of Rights is a shameful day as declared by our president?
I say a great day today in keeping our freedoms that so many died for us to have and that so many take for granted and will give up so easily.
God bless America.

Apr 20, 2013#38

X-man

I am for background checks. I'm gonna keep this short, cause I can go on forever about this.

It would be stupid for a gun store to just sell a gun to someone without even knowing his history. You can very easily sell a gun to some nut job that will end up killing someone with it.

At the same time, We should not ban guns. I believe in concealed carry. For example. Let's say I'm a school bus driver. I don't have a gun on me, and some kid hops on my bus with a gun. In the middle of my route, he gets up and starts to shoot everyone on my bus. What the hell am I gonna do? Throw my CB mic at him? If I had a gun, right then and there I can shoot him and end it all, possibly saving everyone's lives including mine.

Again, it would be stupid to ban guns, and yes, there should be background checks.

Apr 20, 2013#39

X-man

I was listening to Mark Levin one night and I agreed with what he said. When someone breaks into your house, they're not there to say hi to you. They ain't there to have a meal at your house. They're there to possibly kill you. Kill your family. If you don't have a gun, you're screwed.

Guns are meant for protection and hunting. They were not manufactured for murder. To those people who think guns should be banned obviously don't know what the 2nd amendment is.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Apr 24, 2013#40

Ric

I've been listening to the morning news, MSNBC The Morning Joe show and some others Ranting about 90% of the people in this country wanting Background checks and the polls show it. I just came across a poll that was done in the last few days out of OHIO. The poll question was... Should there be a continued effort to expand Back ground checks on gun sales? 90.92% 2292 votes said NO. 8.73% said YES 220 votes and 9 votes not sure.

Apr 27, 2013#41

S

slumlord

If you buy a new firearm from a dealer,there is a background check by NICS. This is an instant background check database that checks for criminal history. If you have committed a felony,then your purchase will be denied. It is a crime to attempt purchasing a firearm under disability, but the Feds are prosecuting barely a handful of criminals who attempt to buy a gun from a dealer.
The NRA does support the instant background check system. I would have no problems in seeing NICS applying to sales at gun shows. After all,the people at gun shows gather together there because there are plenty of buyers. That in and of itself makes it much more of a commercial exchange than you and a friend or family member selling a gun or two to someone you know.
The dirty little secret is harping about 'Universal' background checks is not what the proposed legislation is about. It is really about restricting sales between even family members. A son cannot purchase a gun for his mother,brother or sister. About the only thing not forbidden is a parent giving or selling a gun to his children. Some of the firearms we now enjoy cannot be sold to anyone,and at the death of the present owner, Uncle Sam will get them. So these guys can hide behind the popular sounding universal checks,but the devil is in the details of these proposed laws.
The present system of instant background checks does not keep these checks in a permanent database. the "universal background checks" law would keep the records permanently--thus after a period of time your guns would be registered.
All it would take after registration is for the powers that be to decide that your particular choice of firearm is not approved by them and then they would send out the goon squad to confiscate them. Maybe also it might be discovered that you are taking drugs to manage depression and they come to take your guns then as well.
I was recently on Chemo for cancer. The doctors kept asking me about whether I was depressed or suicidal and things like that. Now couple Obamacare or whatever you wish to call it with some bureaucrat looking for a reason to confiscate firearms and you might face a rude awakening with a squad of guys beating on your door demanding your guns.
there is one thing that you can count on-- the day after the next gun control law ie passed, it will be described as a good first step. Ask yourself what the second ,third,and fifth steps will be before you give an inch
so I am voting NO on the proposed legislation..........

Apr 28, 2013#42

combatcarl

slumlord said:
If you buy a new firearm from a dealer,there is a background check by NICS. This is an instant background check database that checks for criminal history. If you have committed a felony,then your purchase will be denied. It is a crime to attempt purchasing a firearm under disability, but the Feds are prosecuting barely a handful of criminals who attempt to buy a gun from a dealer.
The NRA does support the instant background check system. I would have no problems in seeing NICS applying to sales at gun shows. After all,the people at gun shows gather together there because there are plenty of buyers. That in and of itself makes it much more of a commercial exchange than you and a friend or family member selling a gun or two to someone you know.
The dirty little secret is harping about 'Universal' background checks is not what the proposed legislation is about. It is really about restricting sales between even family members. A son cannot purchase a gun for his mother,brother or sister. About the only thing not forbidden is a parent giving or selling a gun to his children. Some of the firearms we now enjoy cannot be sold to anyone,and at the death of the present owner, Uncle Sam will get them. So these guys can hide behind the popular sounding universal checks,but the devil is in the details of these proposed laws.
The present system of instant background checks does not keep these checks in a permanent database. the "universal background checks" law would keep the records permanently--thus after a period of time your guns would be registered.
All it would take after registration is for the powers that be to decide that your particular choice of firearm is not approved by them and then they would send out the goon squad to confiscate them. Maybe also it might be discovered that you are taking drugs to manage depression and they come to take your guns then as well.
I was recently on Chemo for cancer. The doctors kept asking me about whether I was depressed or suicidal and things like that. Now couple Obamacare or whatever you wish to call it with some bureaucrat looking for a reason to confiscate firearms and you might face a rude awakening with a squad of guys beating on your door demanding your guns.
there is one thing that you can count on-- the day after the next gun control law ie passed, it will be described as a good first step. Ask yourself what the second ,third,and fifth steps will be before you give an inch
so I am voting NO on the proposed legislation..........

X2. 'Nuf said. The other thing, that I have yet to find an answer to, is how will you register the criminal's weapons? Since prior case law says that a felon cannot self incriminate by registering or being forced to register firearms in their already unlawful possession. So? If you wish to be honest, and you tell me that you want a total ban on any/all firearms, say so. I'll at least respect your opinion, since that's the only way to completely reduce firearm violence. But, I'll fight you tooth and nail. As will most of us. And here, in Oregon, gunshows do background checks. And they work. So quit the BS about check-free gunshows.
X2

Apr 28, 2013#43

P

PIMking

Carscw said:
I am for background checks.

I do not feel you have the right to own a gun if you commit felonies. Or even drunk driving or any drug or violent crimes.

(( racing is the only sport that you need two balls ))

The problem is that people think we dont have them now which we do. But straw purchases are already illegal and somehow some people think that making everyone get one in a private purchase will stop an already illegal act which it wont.

Straw Purchases are already illegal
Selling a gun to a felon or anyone who couldn't legally own a gun is illegal

so what will having private background checks actually do? Noting, a waste of time and more money dumped into the government.

It's amazing that the fear that people have for guns, when someone kills someone with a knife we blame the killer but when it comes to guns it's the gun that does the crime.

Out of the two massively covered shootings this last year the one in Colorado was the only legally purchased and owned rifle/gun used. But his psychiatrist turned him into police before the shooting and they didn't do a thing about it. He also drove by other theaters that allowed Conceal carry to go to the one that was "gun free". He didn't anyone to shoot back at him judging how he turned himself in with out a single fired round at police. if one in ten carry and the theater held 100 people that means ten people on average had a weapon on them and would of shot back at him so he went to a victim rich zone aka Gun free zone.

The dude in CT killed his mom and stole her guns to commit his crimes. It's terrible that we lost 20 young children to a maniac. I cant fathom how I would feel if it were one of my children however knee jerk legislation isn't the answer to all of this.

I just wish that everyone that is such a huge gun control/ban proponent would move to the south side of Chicago and then tell me how great gun control is.

By the way, Ice hockey is the only real sport that takes two balls and a intestinal fortitude to play

Apr 28, 2013#44

Ric

Background checks at Gun Shows is nothing new, there are states that have had Gun Show background checks for years. I went through a check at a gun show when I purchased my Glock 23. The thing is it doesn't make any difference to the honest people at shows buying guns because they still sell the guns to criminals so how do they help?

Apr 28, 2013#45

X-man

There's a video on YouTube that shows Mark Kelly buying a gun and doing a background check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL-wSweBEVc

Apr 28, 2013#46

combatcarl

Ric said:
Background checks at Gun Shows is nothing new, there are states that have had Gun Show background checks for years. I went through a check at a gun show when I purchased my Glock 23. The thing is it doesn't make any difference to the honest people at shows buying guns because they still sell the guns to criminals so how do they help?

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying? Are you talking about straw purchases? And mandatory background checks on all sales is going to stop that how? The only thing that will stop straw buyers/sellers is enforcement. It is already illegal. However, why should it be illegal for me to buy a firearm and gift it to an immediate relative or friend?

Apr 28, 2013#47

djdicetn

combatcarl said:
X2. 'Nuf said. The other thing, that I have yet to find an answer to, is how will you register the criminal's weapons? Since prior case law says that a felon cannot self incriminate by registering or being forced to register firearms in their already unlawful possession. So? If you wish to be honest, and you tell me that you want a total ban on any/all firearms, say so. I'll at least respect your opinion, since that's the only way to completely reduce firearm violence. But, I'll fight you tooth and nail. As will most of us. And here, in Oregon, gunshows do background checks. And they work. So quit the BS about check-free gunshows.
X2

combatcarl,
It would be commendable if the "gun show" background check requirement wasn't decided at the state level(Tennessee does NOT require background checks at gun shows). And isn't there a lot of controversy surrounding on-line sales over the Internet??? I'm not sure "how" that could be either enforced or regulated.

Apr 28, 2013#48

combatcarl

djdicetn said:
combatcarl,
It would be commendable if the "gun show" background check requirement wasn't decided at the state level(Tennessee does NOT require background checks at gun shows). And isn't there a lot of controversy surrounding on-line sales over the Internet??? I'm not sure "how" that could be either enforced or regulated.

Online sales are background check compliant. Try to buy one. It works like this. After you order your choice of firearm, it is shipped to an FFL holder of your choice and a fee is paid for their "handling". Then you go down to pick it up, complete the required paperwork, background check is done, weapon transferred, and you're done. NO online sales take place without FFL and background check.

Apr 28, 2013#49

P

PIMking

djdicetn said:
combatcarl,
It would be commendable if the "gun show" background check requirement wasn't decided at the state level(Tennessee does NOT require background checks at gun shows). And isn't there a lot of controversy surrounding on-line sales over the Internet??? I'm not sure "how" that could be either enforced or regulated.

if you purchase a weapon from a vendor you don't have to have one?

Apr 28, 2013#50

djdicetn

combatcarl said:
Online sales are background check compliant. Try to buy one. It works like this. After you order your choice of firearm, it is shipped to an FFL holder of your choice and a fee is paid for their "handling". Then you go down to pick it up, complete the required paperwork, background check is done, weapon transferred, and you're done. NO online sales take place without FFL and background check.

combatcarl,
That's why I asked....in regards to comments I had "heard" on TV. I've never attempted to purchase a gun on the Internet so I have no first-hand knowledge. Thanks for the clarification. But again, here in TN gun shows are exempt. That should be a "nationwide policy". Just like I stated early on in this thread about our traveling from Tennessee to Maine, camping in several states in our RV with our handgun(registered and TN issued carry permit). We broke the law in half the states we passed through because they don't "recognize" a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit.....that's insane!!!!

Apr 28, 2013#51

djdicetn

PIMking said:
if you purchase a weapon from a vendor you don't have to have one?

PIMking,
Noticed your info shows you have an Ariens. What model/year is it. I have a Gravely, which is now owned by Ariens. Check out the link I posted in the thread below. It shows a VERY happy Ariens nework of dealears in regards to those products!!!

http://www.lawnmowerforum.com/gener...nt-manufacturers-ratings-dealer-networks.html

Apr 29, 2013#52

combatcarl

Yeah. A lot of "investigative" reporters don't know that you get background checked on an online buy. It just doesn't happen at time of sale. All they see is credit card accepted, and guns in the mail. Mouthbreathers.
Now as for states requirements on sales at shows, I don't know. AFAIK, all FFL holders must perform all fed/st required paperwork/checks at time of sale. Now, if I take my private collection to a show, I can walk around and buy/sell/trade to and from other private parties with no checks required. Just no buys from FFLs without a check. I think that's what the "investigative" reporters see/do, and then think there's no checks required.

May 25, 2013#53

M

Moto110ky

mowerman05 said:
background checks are a great thing but they do nothing to keep a illegal gun out of a criminals hands.

This is the fight law abiding gun owners will never win thanks to all the idiots in washington!!!:thumbdown::

May 25, 2013#54

exotion

Moto110ky said:
This is the fight law abiding gun owners will never win thanks to all the idiots in washington!!!:thumbdown::

Unfortunetly there is nothing anyone can do to keep guns out of criminals hand the only thing they can do is make it harder....

May 25, 2013#55

X-man

exotion said:
Unfortunetly there is nothing anyone can do to keep guns out of criminals hand the only thing they can do is make it harder....

Exactly. I don't think most people understand that.:frown:

May 25, 2013#56

exotion

X-man said:
Exactly. I don't think most people understand that.:frown:

And it doesn't even affect anyone unless they have a criminal background so get over it?

May 25, 2013#57

okiepc

It does effect everyone, now the government knows what and how much you own. The less the government knows about law abiding citizens the better, they need to watch for the nut cases we have coming into our country.:thumbsup:

May 25, 2013#58

exotion

okiepc said:
It does effect everyone, now the government knows what and how much you own. The less the government knows about law abiding citizens the better, they need to watch for the nut cases we have coming into our country.:thumbsup:

So what? They already know everything about you your family and everything. Again get over it go get your background check and buy a big gun.

May 25, 2013#59

Ric

exotion said:
And it doesn't even affect anyone unless they have a criminal background so get over it?

The back ground check isn't going to effect the criminal in away. There going to buy there guns the same way they have for years and years. We have had background checks here in Florida for as long as I can remember and it has done nothing to effect the criminal element. If you want guns you can get about anything you want at a gun show.

May 26, 2013#60

jekjr

The Second Amendment does not have a clause for a background check. Every one of the guys that signed the documents associated with our nation would have failed a background check because they would have been labeled something by Liberals.

May 26, 2013#61

exotion

jekjr said:
The Second Amendment does not have a clause for a background check. Every one of the guys that signed the documents associated with our nation would have failed a background check because they would have been labeled something by Liberals.

Good thing that was written in the 21st century

Jul 29, 2013#62

LawnBoy97

exotion said:
Good thing that was written in the 21st century

I read through some of this, and I keep seeing how people say it is so easy to get a gun at a gun show. Maybe those should have higher restrictions, since as all of you say, that is where the criminals get their guns. It is one thing to have a gun and hunt, or just target practice and stuff, but that doesn't mean that you need tons of ammo, and military grade weapons. That recent massacre at the movie theater could have been lessened if the maniac didn't have such a high amount of ammo, and hardly had to reload. When are you gonna have to fire off 10 or 20 15-round magazines? It only takes a couple of shots to kill a deer, if that.

Think about how long it takes to get a license, or even a passport, and then, as all of you are saying, you can just walk into a gun show and pick up a weapon. It shouldn't be that easy.

I recently had a friend kill himself with a gun, his step dad's gun which he thought was hidden. There should be restrictions, and there should be laws, there just has to be a BALANCE and that's all there is to it.

Jul 29, 2013#63

P

PIMking

LawnBoy97 said:
I read through some of this, and I keep seeing how people say it is so easy to get a gun at a gun show. Maybe those should have higher restrictions, since as all of you say, that is where the criminals get their guns. It is one thing to have a gun and hunt, or just target practice and stuff, but that doesn't mean that you need tons of ammo, and military grade weapons. That recent massacre at the movie theater could have been lessened if the maniac didn't have such a high amount of ammo, and hardly had to reload. When are you gonna have to fire off 10 or 20 15-round magazines? It only takes a couple of shots to kill a deer, if that.

Think about how long it takes to get a license, or even a passport, and then, as all of you are saying, you can just walk into a gun show and pick up a weapon. It shouldn't be that easy.

I recently had a friend kill himself with a gun, his step dad's gun which he thought was hidden. There should be restrictions, and there should be laws, there just has to be a BALANCE and that's all there is to it.

sorry that your friend killed himself with a gun. People kill themselves all the time with guns, and even drugs. Adding more laws isn't going to stop it. The gun show loophole is a joke and a made up theory that isn't true. If you buy a gun from a vendor at a gun show you have to pass a background check as if you were buying one from a gun shop.

Private sales to a felon are illegal, no matter where its done and or who is selling it (unless it's the government). So adding more laws isn't going to fix this. I can say that all my 12 guns must be defective, they've never killed a single person... Only a few Raccoons, pigs, yotes, and deer. I have an ar 15 (which isn't a military rifle as many who try to make you think) its a semi auto rifle, which means it only fires one round per trigger pull like a pistol. In fact it's only like 3% of the gun crime that are done with a "assault rifle"

taking a gun away from those who didn't do anything wrong isn't going to stop the crime. every time there is a drunk driver that kills someone you don't see our politicians screaming to take cars away from those who didn't do the crime. the major problem is that anti gun people don't see a gun as a gun, they see it as a monster that will just go off killing everything around, not realizing that it takes someone to pull that trigger.

The movie theater shooter went by numerous theaters that allowed Concealed carry to go to one that had a "gun free" zone since he knew that he would be shot back at.

Jul 30, 2013#64

LawnBoy97

PIMking said:
sorry that your friend killed himself with a gun. People kill themselves all the time with guns, and even drugs. Adding more laws isn't going to stop it. The gun show loophole is a joke and a made up theory that isn't true. If you buy a gun from a vendor at a gun show you have to pass a background check as if you were buying one from a gun shop.

Private sales to a felon are illegal, no matter where its done and or who is selling it (unless it's the government). So adding more laws isn't going to fix this. I can say that all my 12 guns must be defective, they've never killed a single person... Only a few Raccoons, pigs, yotes, and deer. I have an ar 15 (which isn't a military rifle as many who try to make you think) its a semi auto rifle, which means it only fires one round per trigger pull like a pistol. In fact it's only like 3% of the gun crime that are done with a "assault rifle"

taking a gun away from those who didn't do anything wrong isn't going to stop the crime. every time there is a drunk driver that kills someone you don't see our politicians screaming to take cars away from those who didn't do the crime. the major problem is that anti gun people don't see a gun as a gun, they see it as a monster that will just go off killing everything around, not realizing that it takes someone to pull that trigger.

The movie theater shooter went by numerous theaters that allowed Concealed carry to go to one that had a "gun free" zone since he knew that he would be shot back at.

Okay, thanks for all of the information. I realize what you say about that someone has to be there to pull the trigger, and it all makes sense. So I guess that is where people need to just sit down and come up with a solution. But the thing with the movie theater is that it is wrong to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but yet you never know if the guy next to you is a crazy guy with a gun in his pocket. I don't know, I don't know all there is to know about guns, and what each side is saying, but I guess I just needed to vent or something.

Aug 1, 2013#65

S

slimbo

i say NO,,, a criminal does whatever it takes to get the job done,,,peace luv tye dye

Aug 1, 2013#66

TaskForceLawnCare

There was much that our founding fathers did not agree on: states’ rights versus federal rights, a standing army versus militias, how involved we should be with the international community, the manner in which we managed debt, and many more significant arguments that still rage today. Almost universally, however, they believed in a man’s right to bear arms. A gun is the great equalizer. It protects a man from those who would do him violence. It protects a people from tyranny. It keeps a man free. The quotes on the subject are numerous, but Thomas Jefferson said it most clearly, “Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.” They don’t need to. And any government that believes in a free citizenry would never infringe on their right to do so.

As long as there is still a breath in me i will destroy anyone who wishes to harm my family or me. We don't get to chose when a criminal may try and attack us. We may however chose whether we are an unarmed victim or the victor. It is the last thing i would want to reach for but the first thing I'd grab to keep my family safe.

Written in the 21st century has nothing to do with it. The second amendment has been protecting all the amendments since 1776.

If anything the free press needs adjusted

Aug 2, 2013#67

LawnBoy97

TaskForceLawnCare said:
There was much that our founding fathers did not agree on: states’ rights versus federal rights, a standing army versus militias, how involved we should be with the international community, the manner in which we managed debt, and many more significant arguments that still rage today. Almost universally, however, they believed in a man’s right to bear arms. A gun is the great equalizer. It protects a man from those who would do him violence. It protects a people from tyranny. It keeps a man free. The quotes on the subject are numerous, but Thomas Jefferson said it most clearly, “Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.” They don’t need to. And any government that believes in a free citizenry would never infringe on their right to do so.

As long as there is still a breath in me i will destroy anyone who wishes to harm my family or me. We don't get to chose when a criminal may try and attack us. We may however chose whether we are an unarmed victim or the victor. It is the last thing i would want to reach for but the first thing I'd grab to keep my family safe.

Written in the 21st century has nothing to do with it. The second amendment has been protecting all the amendments since 1776.

If anything the free press needs adjusted

I like that.

Home

Export thread

Gun Background checks

Footer Links 1

Footer Links 2